CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a requirement ('Requires a schedule type') but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination via offset/limit), or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds information (listing action and required parameter, then optional filters). However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating required and optional parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context adequately. The output schema may cover return values, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context for a tool with multiple parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions schedule_type, entityType, and entityId, but doesn't explain what these mean (e.g., what values schedule_type accepts, what entityType refers to). It omits tenant_id, offset, and limit entirely, leaving 3 of 6 parameters undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond naming some parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List schedules') and the target resource ('for a tenant'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cdp_get_schedule (singular) or cdp_create_schedule. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., cdp_list_campaigns) beyond the resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by stating 'Requires a schedule type' and mentions optional filters, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdp_get_schedule or cdp_list_workflows. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites beyond the required parameter are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.